What is an “Injury in the Course and Scope of Employment?” in Pennsylvania

Often, disputes in workers’ compensation claims involves medical questions, such as whether carpal tunnel syndrome is job related or whether a heart attack stems from work. In other cases, the issue is not the injury at all. Instead, it involves whether the injury happened during the course and scope of employment.

One of the most common questions that arises in the field of workers’ comp law is “was the injury or illness caused within the ‘course and scope of employment?’” While some workers’ comp situations are straightforward – such as when an injury occurs in the workplace while an employee is carrying out his or her normal day-to-day activities – others require a more in-depth analysis of what exactly the “course and scope” of an employee’s job encompasses.

There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for whether something falls within this definition. Although there are many examples that have been addressed since the inception of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the unique nature of each case requires a careful analysis of the facts and situations that led to the injury or illness. At Martin Law, we have helped many clients throughout Pennsylvania address this issue and seek the benefits they require.

In Pennsylvania, the Workers’ Compensation Act requires employers to pay for injuries that workers suffer in the course of employment, which means they are furthering the business or affairs of the employer at the time of the injury. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has held that workers are eligible for compensation for injuries suffered on the employers’ premises during work hours as long as they did not abandon their employment or do something foreign to the employment. Given this broad standard, how do cases involving the course and scope of employment arise?

Examples

In the case Little v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (B&L Ford/Chevrolet), the Court affirmed the denial of a fatal claim petition. The Court ruled that the decedent’s heart attack was not caused by furthering the employer’s business but in reaction to being terminated. The decedent had stopped working due to injuries and was terminated a few days later via letter. The decedent later died from a heart attack while re-reading the termination letter. The court ruled that the heart attack was a result of the termination letter and not the work injuries, therefore denying the fatal claim petition.

In another recent case, the issue was whether a convenience store worker had abandoned his work by chasing a would-be thief into the parking lot. The worker was a manager who had come to work early to help a coworker. He saw a thief attempt to take money from the register and chase after him. The worker chased him into the parking lot and reached into the man’s car as he was driving away. The thief dragged the worker as he drove off and ran over his head. The man later died from severe head injuries.

The employer argued that the man had abandoned his employment. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ultimately held that the man was acting in the course and scope of his employment and was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

PA Court Issues Significant Ruling on Course and Scope in Workers’ Compensation Case

In 2018, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an affirmative ruling upholding a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to award benefits. The ruling upholds benefits previously awarded to current flight attendant and Martin Law client Betty Bockelman for the non displaced fracture she suffered in her left ankle when she slipped on water aboard the employee shuttle bus, while returning to her car.

Bockelman is a flight attendant for US Airways based out of the Philadelphia Airport who used the airport supplied employee shuttle to get to and from the terminal after parking in the designated employee lot. In January 2015, after working a round trip between Philadelphia and Miami, Bockelman went to take the shuttle bus back to the employee designated parking lot. While on the shuttle bus, she stepped on water trying to lift her luggage onto the overhead rack and subsequently fell fracturing her left ankle. Bockelman remained out of work until her fracture healed in April 2015, upon which time she returned to her full duty position.

In June 2015, Bockelman along with her attorney, Al Carlson, filed a claim petition for her to receive both medical and indemnity benefits for the time she was out of work. In January 2016, the Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded Bockelman’s claim petition stating that she was within the course and scope of her employment and entitled to benefits. US Airways appealed the decision stating the shuttle bus was not part of the Employer’s premises. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision and US Airways again appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

When the workers’ compensation judge awarded Bockelman’s claim petition she was entitled to receive indemnity benefits for the four months that she was out of work along with a statutory interest on the compensation and to have her medical bills associated with the fracture paid. Since Bockelman had returned to work during the course of the litigation and her fracture was healed by October 2015 according to medical experts her benefits were only for a closed period of time.

The court decided in this case that any area that is customarily used as a means to access the employer’s business can be considered part of the premises, regardless of ownership. Simply it allows employee’s who commute to their employer’s business by employee shuttle bus after using a designated parking lot, to receive indemnity and medical benefits after an injury by deeming the use of the shuttle bus as part of their course and scope.

Attorney Al Carlson feels that “this is an important decision, as it effects not only everyone working at the Philadelphia International Airport, but anyone whom is injured in Pennsylvania in a similar situation.”